Replies

The cleanest way would be to subdivision model it. Stuff like this is easy to model, it's just time consuming. Example:

Make sure your piece is designed beforehand because this can get a bit messy if you try to do it unplanned. Once you've got one piece done it is usually faster to do the rest since they tend to reuse shapes often and you can just copy and paste what you've already modeled and stitch it up.

Another option would be to make a tripart insert curve mesh brush in ZBrush with a beveled shape and use it to do the swooping patterns. This is much faster, results are acceptable but not as good as sub-division modeling (in my opinion)

The first set I modeled was that shield on the side. <click link to see sketchfab. I used sub d modeling in Maya something similar to @atticusMars's tutorial, and it felt tedious but also more precise.

Today I tried one of those side panel ornaments in zbrush, after projecting/extruding an illustrator curve in Maya. Turned out like this:

I tried about three times, each feels milky with little form. This process was more fun than in Maya, but I loved the precision in maya more. I've also never re-topo'd a mesh yet.

Your sculpt definitely looks doughy, using zremesher (at a fairly low density) like Musashi mentioned above would probably help a lot. Since it reduces the resolution while trying to preserve the edges it tends to smooth out a lot of the irregularities in your sculpt. You could also try using the clay polish feature.

Keep in mind that it doesn't really need to be perfect, these are small details and in a fairly complex scene, odds are people won't be zooming in on them. If you have the time and the patience then I would sub-d model it, but I don't think it's really going to detract significantly from the scene if you don't.

Sub-d works best for these kind of things in my experience especially when you plan to reuse elements for kit bash later on since it's easy to tweak, bend, ffd etc. What also works well for some things, especially small details or flat panels is to create some masks in Illustrator from a source picture, either by hand or vectorize automaticaly if its a good source and then run it through ndo to get a nice normal map. The mask can also double as a color id for ddo.

Thanks! I think i'm gonna go with sub-d modeling and kit bashing a set. Then use z-brush for the smaller details. This is eventually for a larger fantasy art scene, so hopefully I can find a system that works. I also hope I don't waste my time making tiny details no one will notice.

Though, just an observation. Can anyone think of a good time to be using these in a game? Like @AtticusMars&nbsp; said, I think the tiny intricate details would be lost on a player, especially if the game's a shooter. Maybe a sort of mystery game genre would fit for a style using these?

This is looking great! I'm not an expert on modeling filigree, but the videos being linked here look like great references. If you're modeling it in Maya just be sure to be mindful of smoothing and edge loops when it comes time for that, especially if you want to retain the original mesh for the lowpoly.

Whats going on with the detail piece on the left side of the piano? It looks like the placement is off, it has flipped faces, or is just a different mesh altogether.

Brought that into zbrush and gave it some better depth (and that's how it got doughy)

Brought that into maya and used the quad draw tool/make live button to make new topology

Then modified that topology to get to this point

Next, I want that crease information to import into ZBrush. right? Really all I want is to get the pretty vein lines on there, But I don't know the best way to go about it. I'm really lost in all my options. I have Maya LT and Regular (student) Maya 2016... GoZ doesn't work with 2016. Should I just download a version of Maya that works with GoZ? Are there other alternatives? like Max? Or should I use zmesher tool or reinforce edges by hand? (takes forever) < so lost.

My end goal is to bake out information to a lowpoly model and stick that on the piano. I also want to bake the information to flat planes. And, finally, I want to make sure I can reuse all these next time and stick them in a filigree bash kit. Plus, its only going to be this big on screen... Is it really worth it to keep the low poly detail?@hmm_rock&nbsp;Thanks! The left side of the piano, the shield filigree group object is just too far moved into the mesh.I also want to share this with you guys: great reference for filigree and everything from that time period.

If you need to take creases into Zbrush one way that's simple and works in any program is to apply the subdivision (i.e. Mesh->Smooth) at several subdivision levels, export it as .obj, import into Zbrush, and rebuild the subdivision levels there.

Personally I can't imagine doing this type of thing without my F2 Blender addon. It's way faster than doing two passes in Zbrush with manual retopology IMO, but if you feel like this way works well for you then more power to you.

You're overthinking this. Ther's no need to bring these pieces into zbrush for the shape and the veines. This can be done in subdiv modeling entirely. Here is an example from Viscorbel. 2x turbosmooth on top, cage on bottom: http://i.imgur.com/InqlEEI.jpgA simple extrusion or support loops will do to get the effect for the veins.

Excellent video MMAAXX. Haven't seen this yet. It's a bit hard to find good tutorials and videos for this kind of stuff. Most people do scifi, weapons or characters. It's a bit of a niche. So much appreciated.

Glad i could help with what little knowledge i have. Believe me this stuff is causing me some headaches aswell. I've spent many hours just trying to model the same ornament over and over again to get better at it. Still not quite there yet. I actualy feel tempted to learn Blender specifically for this after seeing some videos. I've dabbled into it a bit today and the tools already feel so much more suited for this kind of modelling with how easy it is to extrude edges in the right directions and being able to actualy poly model with lines.

I recommend looking through that person's youtube channel, they really specialise in this. And yes, Blender is blazing fast for polymodeling, and whenever you feel your poly isn't going into the right direction you can basically switch over to sculpt mode.BTW: none of this is filigree, which is sticking together beads of metal to get a lace-like effect:

Here's one i'm working on for the trim of the piano.. or really any trim I use on this environment. It looks a little plain .. or incorrect from the reference in some places, like the curved shapes. What do you think?

You make your life harder then necessary with so much geometry. It makes it difficult to control the shape and to tweak it. Model with as little detail as possible and as much as necessary. Let the meshsmooth, turbosmooth or whatever Maya is using do the work for you to get these shapes nicely curved.

To me the inner parts of the curvy parts and around the heart look carved in going by the ref so personally i would model that from one piece.

What are the thicker blue lines on your wireframe? Are those creases? I would recommend you model in subd with support loops only for the hipoly.

@Steppenwolf A HUGE thanks for that incredible archive you linked. I would go as far as to say it's the greatest link ever linked in the history of linking!

Haha thx. I know what you mean. I feel like it's the best ref source that i ever stumbled upon. Small tip: i downloaded the books in the jp2 format, then used Advanced Batch Image Converter to convert them to jpg so they are much easier to browse in every day use and to use as blueprints for modelling. It's a bit cumbersome to convert because the program has trouble with large jp2 files. Needs many runs before it gets all the files but well worth the hassle.

So, i've been learning Blender for this and it's going really well. Finished my first ornament (one piece, all quads) following the workflow from 1D_Inc's youtube videos. Took me about 4-5 hours. Keep in mind that i'm still slow and haven't build muscle memory for this program. Still, doing this in max would have been much much more difficult and time consuming for me. So i can really recommend Blender for this sort of thing.

A month ago i would have considered it crazy talk had someone told me i would be modeling in Blender soon. But i must say i'm very pleasently surprised by the program. Ther's some kickass addons around for it (hardops, bsurfaces, f2) and has some solid tools out of the box. It reminds me of Modo actualy in a way, in that it has some revolutionary tools added over the years instead of just little things here and there like Autodesk, but coming from Max but i found it much easier to wrap my head around it.

A month ago i would have considered it crazy talk had someone told me i would be modeling in Blender soon. But i must say i'm very pleasently surprised by the program. Ther's some kickass addons around for it (hardops, bsurfaces, f2) and has some solid tools out of the box. It reminds me of Modo actualy in a way, in that it has some revolutionary tools added over the years instead of just little things here and there like Autodesk, but coming from Max but i found it much easier to wrap my head around it.

Great that you got up and running so quick and got a good result. Can I ask in what way is the f2 addon superior to Max's poly boost toolkit? The vid above is impressive, but can be done just as fast/efficiently in Max.

A month ago i would have considered it crazy talk had someone told me i would be modeling in Blender soon. But i must say i'm very pleasently surprised by the program. Ther's some kickass addons around for it (hardops, bsurfaces, f2) and has some solid tools out of the box. It reminds me of Modo actualy in a way, in that it has some revolutionary tools added over the years instead of just little things here and there like Autodesk, but coming from Max but i found it much easier to wrap my head around it.

Great that you got up and running so quick and got a good result. Can I ask in what way is the f2 addon superior to Max's poly boost toolkit? The vid above is impressive, but can be done just as fast/efficiently in Max.

I don't know about poly boost toolkit. Seems to be a pretty old script that isn't supported anymore. But good to know it exist since i asked for something like that in another thread recently. Either way f2 isn't the only thing that makes this workflow better in Blender imo. Ther's a couple other things. I use another addon called smart fill, which is like a smart bridge to fill holes while retaining topology of the outer edges. RappaTools for max has a similar feature but it's a pain in the ass to use, needs a very specific selection or it doesn't know what you want from it and produces garbage topology more often then not. The Blender addon just works, with one click, using the same shortcut as f2 addon. It's smart and context sensitive.Other big things for me are the ability to extrude edges and pointing the new edge a direction at the same time without need to tweak position and rotation constantly afterwards. And the last thing is you can poly model with lines directly and extrude lines from vertexes. You don't have to convert/extrude lines to editable poly before poly modeling with them. All in all it's a very fluid and painless modeling workflow.

I don't know about poly boost toolkit. Seems to be a pretty old script
that isn't supported anymore. Either way f2 isn't the only thing that
makes this workflow better in Blender imo. Ther's a couple other things.
I use another addon called smart fill, which is like a smart bridge to
fill holes while retaining topology of the outer edges. RappaTools for
max has a similar feature but it's a pain in the ass to use, needs a
very specific selection or it doesn't know what you want from it and
produces garbage topology more often then not. The Blender addon just
works, with one click, using the same shortcut as f2 addon. It's smart
and context sensitive.Other big things for me are the ability to
extrude edges and pointing the new edge a direction at the same time
without need to tweak position and rotation constantly afterwards. And
the last thing is you can poly model with lines directly and extrude
lines from vertexes. You don't have to convert/extrude lines to editable
poly before poly modeling with them. All in all it's a very fluid and
painless modeling workflow.

Sorry, Polyboost is the graphite modeling tools. The script was added to Max core years ago.

Blender does look interesting. I just watched a few vids. Its UI looks almost identical to Modos.

Smart Bridge is a great feature, I would like to see something similar in Max. Same can be achieved using SetFlow, albeit with a bit of tweaking.

Yea looking at the features of polyboost it seemed familiar. It's no match then in my opinion. Graphite tools kinda have a lot of the functionality but it's clunky in comparison and better suited for retopo then mid air polymodeling in all directions.Set Flow is one of the few things that i'm missing in Blender to be fair. I think Max also has the edge regarding ffd manipulation and modeling with instanced radial arrays. What will happen is that i model my kit bashes in Blender mostly but i will do the arrangements in 3ds max still. It's just very convenient to group some things and get them into shape via ffd, bend modifiers etc. ffd in Blender is a bit more complicated.

It really depends on your skill/knowledge in sculpting(and the whole ZB workflow in general)/modeling. The best method is to just keep at it until you get better at both. This will strengthen your toolset and give you the freedom to just model using whatever suits best for anything you have to model in future.

Yea looking at the features of polyboost it seemed familiar. It's no match then in my opinion. Graphite tools kinda have a lot of the functionality but it's clunky in comparison and better suited for retopo then mid air polymodeling in all directions.Set Flow is one of the few things that i'm missing in Blender to be fair. I think Max also has the edge regarding ffd manipulation and modeling with instanced radial arrays. What will happen is that i model my kit bashes in Blender mostly but i will do the arrangements in 3ds max still. It's just very convenient to group some things and get them into shape via ffd, bend modifiers etc. ffd in Blender is a bit more complicated.

Thing about graphite tools though, you can make full use of them using a flat plane with your ref image on as the target, and combine it with the regular modeling tools for the mid-air movements. Every now and then you can just conform the plane to the new topo and keep going. This makes it very fast to sketch out the topo without having to shift-drag.....rotate....move...etc.

Ahhh! @steppenwolf That link is amazing! it really is the best link in the history of links! I do tend to get too 'close to my work,' focusing on details that won't matter. I guess that's just a matter of practice and time. I'll post an update asap with way better subd modeling @Steppenwolf@musashidan What's f2 and polyboost? I'm doing my modeling in maya, and I feel slow with the toolset, like it takes me longer than it should to model these with the quad draw tool > move edges work flow.. like in this video. I don't think maya has similar tools like blender... blender is slowly looking like a modeling dream for making these pieces. Is there a way I can speed myself up?

f2 for Blender is a collection of scripts that combines a multitude of ways to fill in and create new polies based on your selection. It's super fast because it's context sensitive and always uses the same shortcut (f key). It works for bridging, extruding, grid fills etc.I don't know much about Maya but from what i know its poly modeling capabilities arn't too different from Max's, which i found frustrating enough to give Blender a shot. Now don't get me wrong, i still love Max but it has its limitations and quirks that get in the way of enabling the artist to just do and create for these things.Certainly wouldn't hurt if you just give Blender a try and see if it works for you. It's free and has a preset for Maya controls aswell.

Unless you adopt an entirely new modeling toolset than Maya that works better for you the only way to speed yourself up is to keep practicing. As I've advised above:pick a method, try it out. Then try another. Don't get frustrated because you don't get instant results. This takes time and lots of practice to become proficient in. If you haven't got the patience then maybe modeling isn't for you......

I use another addon called smart fill, which is like a smart bridge to
fill holes while retaining topology of the outer edges. RappaTools for
max has a similar feature but it's a pain in the ass to use, needs a
very specific selection or it doesn't know what you want from it and
produces garbage topology more often then not.

RappaTool's Bridge tool works perfectly. Selections are simple. All you need is to hold either ctrl or shift whilst clicking Bridge for different situations. You can fill entire regions or one face at a time, whilst maintaining mesh volume/edgeflow.

RappaTool's Bridge tool works perfectly. Selections are simple. All you
need is to hold either ctrl or shift whilst clicking Bridge for
different situations. You can fill entire regions or one face at a time,
whilst maintaining mesh volume/edgeflow.

It only does in some circumstances, like in my attached example if all edges were closed borders.Look at this, in Blender it's literally one click. In Max i've wasted 20 clicks or so before getting closer to a solution. Now i'm sure ther's a solution there that works straight away with more experience and deeper understanding of the RappaTools bridge but that's not the point. The point is the Blender addons work intuitively with no prior knowledge and little room for user error even for a noob like me.

How does the f2 tool behave if you give it an odd shape like the Max example? Bridging entire open borders with an odd shape won't happen with +ctrl in RT. I'm guessing f2 can't either. For an odd shape like that in RT you would use the +shift function once, and then the +ctrl. Here are some examples.(in the +ctrl examples I could have just select edges on one side) I might even DL Blender just to check it out(although with several scripts I use in Max there isn't really anything that can't be achieved) If it weren't for the amazing Maxscript community I would have jumped ship a long time ago.

Thx for your explanation of the shift-bridge. Works similar to f2 then. Good to know this actualy works in Max should i need it. The difference is in the usability then since in blender you always use the same shortcut for all the scenarios and don't go through third party menu (unless you assign specific shortcuts). As i said for noobs in the program this is ideal. Even if you want to create a poly instead of a bridge then you just click f key twice.

For odd shapes you work yourself in from outside to inside to solve it. Like in my example with the torus you solve the double edge ring with the open edge on one side first, then do the tripple edge ring. For really complex holes 1d_inc shared some good knowledge how to fill them. Same principle apply to any poly modeling software. A good lesson that i learned from his workflow is that a hole can always be filled with quads as long as the number of border edges is even. Never considered it like that before. Viscorbel tutorials for max, albeit great, pointed me in the wrong direction in that regard since he solves many situations with triangles.

Pasted from the thread you linked:"1) When single opened vertex is selected, it is mirrored on the diagonal of the open edges and a quad is made
2) When sinlge opened edge (or 2 vertex) is selected, a quad is made consisting of this edge and the 2 open edges next to it"

Great thread by the way. Thanks.

This is exactly how RT's +Shift Bridge works. It's based on diagonal verts. So the more I look into and compare both tools it appears they're pretty much the same beast at heart. Good to share this info.

I like the whole 'F' hotkey thing, but you can set up hotkeys for RT's Bridge and essentially have the same setup as the F2 tool. Yes, bridging polys is always going to require an even number of edgeloops if you want to stay all quads(but you can, of course, cleanup/reroute topo or terminate loops after the fact)

Viscorbel bloke is strictly an Arch-Vis artist and does everything - modeling/UV mapping/texturing - to suit his workflow/end result, so, yes, he wouldn't be bothered too much about tecnically correct sub-D modeling or beautiful topology.

Unless you adopt an entirely new modeling toolset than Maya that works better for you the only way to speed yourself up is to keep practicing. As I've advised above:pick a method, try it out. Then try another. Don't get frustrated because you don't get instant results. This takes time and lots of practice to become proficient in. If you haven't got the patience then maybe modeling isn't for you......

Its more like my techniques within Maya are slow. I'm not new to maya, I've been at it since maya 6, but my workflow feels old, outdated, and sluggish. I use marking menus and keyboard shortcuts... but the videos and the discussions on this thread prove I'm a turtle at best. The closest thing so far I've found to help speed me up in maya is working on using the 3d modeling toolkit, but its still maya's tools with prettier buttons.

In the short term you can get a bit quicker by optimizing your keyboard shortcuts. I prefer to have my most used tools on single button shortcuts on the left side of the keyboard for example. More speed comes with experience so it's important to get the fundamentals right, understanding how you have to go about the topology etc. In my case i've spent a lot of time recently to experiment with different leaf topology. For example leafs that look carved in work great when modeled with outline poly strips that will double as support loop but those strips can cause smoothing issues if the leaf is supposed to bulge upwards so i figured for such leafs it's better to model the outside edges with only a line first, then fill the planes and add the support loop pointing downwards. Understanding such fundamentals you can avoid a lot of tweaking and get a good understanding what kind of tools and scripts would help to speed things up even more.

For example leafs that look carved in work great when modeled with outline poly strips that will double as support loop but those strips can cause smoothing issues if the leaf is supposed to bulge upwards so i figured for such leafs it's better to model the outside edges with only a line first, then fill the planes and add the support loop pointing downwards.

Leaf on the left i started modelling with a line (red). The support loop was added on the extrusions pointing downwards. Leaf on the right i started modeling with a poly strip. This doubles as the support loop and sits pretty much flat on top. Ther's no right or wrong here but it's good to know the differences so they can be applied for whatever works best based on the ref. Albeit in this example the leaf bulges inwards i found out the lline method is the best of the two for leafs that bulge outwards. Poly strip works great for leafs that have a carved look like from stone masonry and is perhaps a little faster modeling wise, at least in Blender.

Ah! That makes lots more sense with the photo, thank you! I've seen support loops used before, and I enjoy using them, but tend mis-interpret the difference between when its best to use them and when not to use them in accordance with a reference to game assets.

I suppose our workflow for these (in accordance to games) would be that anything that we model is most likely going to be baked into a normal map. ...and the support loops help create that normal map, yes? I also notice that your extruded edges, the ones you used to make the support loop on, aren't at an exact 90 degree angle, I assume this is for a normal map as well?

thanks for sharing all of this, its really fun to talk about. For the image below, I now know I need to use better support loops and get rid of the 90 degree angle that's extruded straight down. Do you see any other topology improvements? I really like this piece and I want to get it right. It's the shield on the side of the piano, almost like the hero filigree. I Imagine that i'll be using most of the low res topology to enforce the depth of the shield and leaves while also using it to convey the silhouette. So I wonder how much the topology matters, even though I'm very picky about getting it nice and tidy.

Unless you're planning on animating the piano you shouldn't worry about the topology too much. Just keep away from too many tiny, subpixel polygons at typical viewing distance and make sure you have something that you can practically bake down, and you should be good to go.